DC 140 
.D95 
Copy 1 



THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE 

JOURNAL D'ADRIEN 

DUQUESNOY 



By FRED MORROW FLING 



REPRINTED FROM THE 



gimmatt p^turiat §mm 



VOL. VIII NO. I 



OCTOBER 1902 



[Reprinted from The American Historical Review, Vol. VIII., No. I, Oct., lgo2.] 



THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE JOURNAL D'ADRIEN 
DUQUESNOY 

Who was the author of the work bearing the title Journal 
d'Adrien Duqtiesnoy}^ The editor, M. de Crevecceur, inferring, 
from what seemed to him sufficient evidence, that the writer was 
Duquesnoy, gave this title to the publication. M. Brette, on the 
contrary, declares that the evidence is insufficient to justify the in- 
ference. The question of authorship still remains unsettled. It is 
a question of the first importance for students of the French Revo- 
lution, for the work is one of the most valuable sources dealing with 
the events of the National Assembly. 

The Joinnial is one of the publications of the Societe d' Histoire 
Conteniporaine , and was edited, as I have said, by M. de Crevecceur. 
M. de la Sicotiere, who was a member of the society, had in his 
possession a series of letters and bulletins written between June 13, 
1789, and March 22, 1790. The letters, few in number, were in 
the handwriting of Duquesnoy, and were signed by him ; the bul- 
letins, with the exception of a few autograph corrections by Du- 
quesnoy, were the work of copyists. This evidence, together with 
the fact that in his letters Duquesnoy referred to " his bulletins," 
seemed to justify the inference that he was the author of the bul- 
letins found with the letters. While preparing the bulletins for the 
press, M. de Crevecceur encountered in the BibliotJiiqiie Nationale 
an anonymous manuscript in two volumes containing bulletins 
covering the period from May 3, 1789, to April 3, 1790. The bul- 
letins, from June 13 on, proved to be duplicates of the bulletins in 
the Sicotiere manuscript. M. de Crevecceur inferred, naturally, 
that Duquesnoy was the author of this series also, and fused the 
two series in his publication and called the work the Journal 
d'Adrieti Duquesnoy} 

The work was reviewed by M. Brette.^ Overlooking the state- 
ment of the editor that some of the bulletins in manuscript S. bore 
autograph corrections by Duquesnoy, he asserted that the discovery 

1 Duquesnoy, Adrien, Journal d' Adrien Duquesnoy, Depute du Tiers Etat de Bar- 
le-Duc, sur I' Assemblee Constituante, _y mai iy8g-$ avril ijgo, publie four la Socitte 
d'' Histoire Conteniporaine par Robert de Crivecccur. 2 vols., Paris, 1894. 

^Journal, I. pp. xvii, xviii, xxxvi— xl. 

^ Revue Critique, May II, 1896, pp. 363-373. 
(70) 




H^ 



7 1 F. M. Fling 



ijr 



of the letters in the midst of the bulletins did not prove that Du- 
quesnoy was the author of the bulletins. He also pointed out that 
while the publication was a correct reproduction of the manuscript 
B. no variants were given. He recalled the fact that M. de la Sico- 
tiere had stated in 1885 that these bulletins and letters that he at- 
tributed to Duquesnoy began in December, 1788, and ended in May, 
1790, and asked why M. de Crevecoeur had not published them 
all.' While not believing in the authorship of Duquesnoy, M. 
Brette does not attempt to solve the question of authorship. He 
suggests that the bulletins may have been the work of anonymous 
writers of nouvelles a la main, of a M. Bernard or of a M. Fiscal, 
but hardly seems to take these suggestions seriously himself 

As to the hypothesis that the Journal belongs to the class of 
newspapers called nouvelles a la main, the evidence upon which it 
rests appears to me of but little value. M. Brette laid great stress 
upon the fact that in the manuscript B. — the only one that he has 
seen — the bulletins are not all in the same handwriting, and, above 
all, that the writing changes often at the foot of the page, even 
when such a change divides a sentence. Upon the first point I 
shall not dwell. I am acquainted with no law that enables me to 
decide how many copyists a man may reasonably employ at the 
same time — unless it be the length of his purse — nor how often 
he may reasonably change them. Upon the changes in the middle 
of a sentence or at the bottom of the page, I shall say a word. I 
have examined the manuscript B.^ As far as I was able to discover, 
the sudden changes are found only in bulletins 8 and 9, and each 
bulletin shows two handwritings. Hardly sufficient evidence, one 
would think, to justify the statement that "these methods savor of 
the workshop of the nouvelles." ' The truth is that the hand- 

' In the Revue Critique oi June 21, 1896, M. Guilhiermoz, who had aided M. de 
Crevecoeur in the revision of his proofs, replied to M. Brette and gave a satisfactory 
answer to this question. In a note printed in the Intermediaire , M. de la Sicoti4re had 
made the statement that led M. Brette to assume that the manuscript had been tampered 
with. " La reality est beaucoup plus simple : c'est la note de V Intermediaire qui est 
erronee. . . . M. de la S. a sans doute ecrit mars, et I'imprimeurde P Inter?>iediaire aura 
I'l mat." Prefixed to the manuscript S. are "quelques lettres, sans aucun rapport avec 
\& Journal, et relatives a I'Assemblee des notables." 

■^ Bibliotheque Nationale, Nouvelles Acquisitions Franiaises, 'iios. 22^, 225. The 
manuscript fills volumes XIV. and XV. of the Notes stir r Histoire d' Espagne et de 
France. This main head appears upon the title page with the subhead, Correspondance 
sur V Assemblee Nationale. In the printed volumes, the matter is divided at the same 
point as in the manuscript. 

3 " Le manuscrit B. dent il nous donne le texte in extenso preseute cette particularity 
que les ecritures qui, pour le tome I, ne doivent pas etre au nombre de plus de cinq ou 
six, sent alternatives et changent, non pas avec les bulletins, non pas avec les dates, mais 
avec les pages memes ; le copiste ne finit pas la phrase ; il a ete paye pour ecrire tant de 
pages, il passe la main quand sa tache est remplie. Ces precedes sentent bien, on en 
conviendra, I'officine des nouvelles." Revue Critique, May II, 1896. 



Journal d''Adi'ien Duquesnoy 72 

writing counts for very little in determining the authorship of these 
bulletins. As every student of the French Revolution knows — 
and no one better than M. Brette — the members of the Assembly 
were accustomed, especially in 1789, to send letters and bulletins to 
their constituents and friends in the provinces. Not only were copy- 
ists employed in the preparation of these bulletins, but after the 
bulletins reached the provinces they were often copied a second time 
that they might serve a larger number of readers.' It is quite 
within the bounds of possibility that there are copies of copies among 
the bulletins in the manuscript B. For M. Brette to lay so much 
stress upon the fact that the bulletins are not in the handwriting of 
Duquesnoy, is certainly not reasonable, although the reason for his 
course is clear ; it is the evidence upon which M. de Crevecosur 
rests his case. M. Brette was certainly right in rnaintaining that 
the evidence was insufficient ; he was wrong in believing, as he ap- 
parently does, that the case can be won only with that kind of evi- 
dence.^ It is strange that he should not have seen that authorship 
is not necessarily dependent upon penmanship. 

The theory that Bernard is the author of the Sicotiere bulletins 
from December 9, 17S9, on, because these bulletins are in his hand- 
writing, is easily disposed of. The author of the bulletin of Decem- 
ber 10, was a member of the Assembly.' Bernard was not a 
member of the Assembly and must, therefore, have copied the 
bulletin, as it appears in his handwriting. If he copied one, he 
may have copied more than one, or in other words, all that appear 
in his handwriting. 

M. Brette's third hypothesis that a certain M. Fiscal may be 
the unknown author of the bulletins, is no more tenable than the 
other two. It evidently rests upon the misinterpretation of a sen- 
tence in one of Duquesnoy's autograph letters. Writing to the 
Prince, he says : " M. Bernard takes my bulletins and has them 
sent to you ; he tells me that you have received those of M. Fiscal." ^ 
M. Brette assumes that Fiscal was a writer of bulletins. Why not 
a receiver of bulletins ? Is it not quite possible that what Duques- 
noy meant to say was, " He tells me that you received from M. 

' The second volume of the Vie et Correspomlance of Gaultier de Biauzat, published 
by Francisque Mege (2 vols. Paris, 1890), is a good illustration of this kind of work. 
See pp. 46, 51, 57, 73, 79, 80, 88, 100, loi, 109, 149, 163, 164, and especially 209. 

2 " II reconnaitra aussi que des doutes serieux subsisteront sur I'attribution globale 
qui a ete faite tant que Ton n'aura pas prouve par V ecritnre que tous ces bulletins sont 
I'.ceuvre du seul Duquesnoy." Revue Critique, June 22, 1896. 

3 "Mon projet n'est pas de I'examiner en detail, car je suis si frappe de I'inconveni- 
ent dont je viens de parler que jamais je ne pourrai voter pour son adoption." Journal, 
II. 156. 

^Journal, II. 150. 



73 F. M. Fling 

Fiscal the bulletins that I sent to him ? " Fiscal could not have 
been the author of these bulletins, for the author was a member of 
the Assembly. In M. Brette's excellent lists of the members of the 
Constituent Assembly, there is no Fiscal. To M. Brette, Fiscal 
was an obscure person who might have been the writer of nouvclles 
a la main. Fiscal was not so obscure as M. Brette thinks. Princes, 
a hundred years ago, did not have letters addressed to them par la 
vote of obscure persons.' If M. Brette wishes to find M. Fiscal, he 
should look for him not in Paris, but in the place where the Prince 
of Salm-Salm was residing in November, 1789. 

The remaining objections of M. Brette to the authorship of 
Duquesnoy rest upon other grounds than those that we have been 
considering. The writer makes incorrect statements. It is the 
opinion of M. Brette that Duquesnoy could not have been ignorant 
of these things. Here we are in the region of uncertainties. What 
is the test ? Duquesnoy was from Nancy and Nancy is in Lor- 
raine. If the writer of the bulletins should refer several times to 
Nancy as a city of Provence, the inference would be natural that 
the writer could not be Duquesnoy. Unfortunately, the facts cited 
by M. Brette are not of this kind and there might be a justifiable 
difference of opinion as to whether Duquesnoy could be ignorant of 
them and remain Duquesnoy." I believe that, in face of the strong 
positive reasons that will be given in support of the authorship of 
Duquesnoy, we must infer that he was ignorant. 

Up to the present time, much of the discussion upon this ques- 
tion of authorship has been irrelevant. A restatement of the ques- 
tion may render its solution less difficult. Whatever may be the 
relations between manuscripts S. and B., it is generally agreed that 
the published work is a correct reproduction of the manuscript B.^ 
Furthermore, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of this 
manuscript. It was undoubtedly written in the years 1789 and 
1790. The handwriting being that of copyists, proves nothing as 
to authorship. Is it possible from the study of this manuscript, 
aided by all the resources at our disposal, to determine the author- 
ship of these bulletins ? I believe that it is. If it be not, then his- 
torical criticism is but a useless theory, for never was there a more 
promising opportunity for it to prove its practical value. 

' " II est etonnam que vous n'ayez pas re?u les lettres qui vous ont ete adressees par 
la voie de M. Fiscal. M. le comte lu' assure qu'elles peuvent etre retardees, mais qu'elles 
ne seront point egar^es, parce qu'il est sur delui." Journal, II. 11. Bernard to Salra- 
Salm. 

'Revue Critique, June 22, l8g6, p. 370. 

'"La publication actuelle faite en consequence de la decouverte signalee est la 
reproducii >n scrupuleuse et correcte du m muscrit conserve a la Bibliotheque nationale 
dans les papiers de Beauchamps." M. Brette in the Uevue Critique, May II, 1S96. 



Journal d' Adrien Dtiquesnoy 74 

1 shall endeavor to show (i) that the bulletins are related to one 
another, that is, are by the same man ; (2) what the personality of 
the writer was, and (3) that this personality fits Duquesnoy and 
nobody else. I shall not examine all the bulletins. M. Brette 
denies that Duquesnoy was the author of the May and June bulle- 
tins of 1789. I shall endeavor to show that he was. To prove 
that he was the author of later bulletins, it is only necessary to 
show that they are connected, either directly or indirectly, with 
these first bulletins. 

The bulletins form a series. This is made clear by such ref- 
erences as " the preceding number," ' " one of the preceding num- 
bers," ^ "the present number,"^ "a future number ;" * by refer- 
ences to previous bulletins by number as "Number 13,"° or 
"Number 44."^ This last reference, found in bulletin 46, of July 
II, 1789, would seem to prove that the author began to issue the 
bulletins at the opening of the States General. 

The author also refers to his bulletins as " my journal, "'^ but in the 
same sentence refers to the "number " of the journal that he is writ- 
ing. In another place he speaks of his work as " being less a gazette, 
a recital of facts, than a series of observations upon the facts." ^ 

These bulletins are not intended for the general public, but for 
the friends of the writer in one of the provinces. He urges 
them to read a certain bulletin with care and " to preserve it until 
time and events shall have destroyed or fortified " his fears.' He 
frequently warns them against the false reports that circulate in the 
provinces, and reminds them that one who is on the spot can secure 
more reliable information.'" He sends to them in printed form the 
speeches, decrees, memoirs, and other matter to which he has 
referred in his bulletins." 

These things, however, although they prove the existence of a 
connected series of bulletins, do not prove that all the bulletins in 
the manuscript B. primarily formed part of the series. There is a 
presumption in favor of it ; nothing more. 

' Bulletins 2, 14, 21 (35, in order, but not numbered). 

2 Bulletin 28. 

3 Bulletin 10. 
'Bulletin 39. 

5 Bulletin 14. 

6 Bulletin 46. 

' " Je place ici, comme je I'ai fait dans tout le cours de men journal, un numero 
destine aux observations et dans lequel je ne garde pas I'ordre rigoureux des faits." 
Bulletin 34 (bis). 

8 Bulletin 46. 

9 Bulletin 10. 

'"Bulletins 10, 15, 21, 24. 
"Bulletins 3, 6, 7, 13, 16. 19, 39. 



75 F. M. Fling 

The connection between some of the bulletins can be established 
by means of language. In the first bulletin — a very short one — he 
writes : " Je pense, et je ne suis pas le seul, que le gouvernement 
veut nous prendre par famine et par lassitude." The first sentence 
of the next bulletin reads : " L' opinion qu'on veut prendre les 
deputes par ennui ou par famine attache chaque instant davan- 
tage." The appearance of the same idea in both bulletins, ex- 
pressed in almost identical language, would seem to indicate com- 
mon authorship. In bulletin lo is the uncommon expression, 
" Une fureur de parler inconcevable ! " This expression is met 
with again in bulletin 14, in the form, " Tous ont la fureur de 
parler," and finally in an autograph letter by Duquesnoy it appears 
again in the phrase, " La fureur de parler que vous nous con- 
naissez." ^ Is the expression sufficiently unique to justify the 
inference that these two bulletins had a common author and that 
that author was Duquesnoy ? I am somewhat familiar with the 
literature of the Revolution, but if I have encountered the expres- 
sion in any other writer, I have forgotten it. The very unique 
expression, " Deliberer quatre jours sur I'aile d'une mouche," is 
found in bulletins 10 and 12 ; it would seem to bind them to each 
other and to bind 12 to 14. The language employed in 2 (p. 4) 
and in 10 (p. 30), in describing the sermon of the bishop of Nancy, 
connects 2 with 10 and, consequently, with 12 and 14. 

Language is, however, not the only nor is it the most important 
means employed in binding the bulletins together. The continuity 
of the narrative, the references to statements in earlier bulletins, 
judgments upon men and events, personal sentiments, personal in- 
terests and associations, all these things point to a common author. 
In dealing with these topics, we are at the same time forming a 
conception of the personality of the writer. Instead of grouping 
the matter under these different heads, I shall adopt a more prac- 
tical method of presentation, treating the bulletins in their order 
and showing some of the possible connections. 

The connection between bulletins i and 2 is established by the 
language referred to above, by a reference in number 2 to an incor- 
rect statement in i, and by the fact that the bulletins deal with the 
events of successive days and form a continuous narrative. Bul- 
letin 3 takes up the narrative where 2 leaves it. There is, also, a 
reference in 3 to the "sermon de I'eveque " that would be intel- 
ligible only to a reader of 2. The remarks made in numbers 5 and 
6 upon Necker's speech, connect those bulletins with 3. The 
opening sentence in 4 marks that bulletin as a continuation of 3. 

^ Joui'nal^ I, 85. 



Journal d' Adrien Duqtiesnoy 76 

The two expressions quoted above connect 4 with 10 ; another ex- 
pression connects it with 8 ; ' a reference to Mirabeau's journal con- 
nects it with 8 and through 8 with 10; indications that the writer 
is from Lorraine and interested in that province connects the bul- 
letin with 5, 6, 10, II, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 31, 45. The 
opinion expressed upon the Bretons in 4, connects the bulletin with 
5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 18, 28. A reference to the " j-eglement" binds 4 
to 5. The bulletin 5 has been connected with 3 and 4; it is con- 
nected with 6 by the use of similar expressions in both.^ The bul- 
letin 6 is connected with 4 by common expressions ; ' with 3 by a 
common opinion ; ■* with 7 by the reference to the Due de Praslin 
and by the same bond with 9 and 10. The description of Target 
connects 9 with 10. The bulletin 17 is bound to 16 by the refer- 
ences to the " projet de conciliation," and to 13 by the reference to 
Rabaud de Saint-Etienne and the Protestant religion. Number 19 
is connected with 18 by the reference to the garde des sceaux, and 
the substance of 19 is reproduced, with many identical expressions, 
in Duquesnoy's autograph letter of the same date. The reference to 
the Due de Mortemart binds 23 to 20, while the belief expressed in 
Mirabeau's venality connects 23 with 24. Bulletin 25 is connected 
with 24, 22, 26, and 27.^ The reference to the clergy binds 29 to 27. 
Number 30 is connected, by the judgments expressed upon Necker, 
with 7, 8, 9, 10, 34, and 34 (bis). The reference to Maury, binds 
32 to 31. The reference to the intrigues of the nobles, connects 33 
with 34. The reference to Bouche connects 36 with 31 ; 37 is con- 
nected with 36 by the reference to the meeting of the bureaux, with 
38 by the reference to the Due d'Orleans ; the reference to Bailly 
connects 38 with 39 ; the second paragraph in 40 clearly connects it 
with 39. These references constitute but a small part of those that 
might be given. They are sufficient, however, to show that it is 
highly probable that the first forty bulletins form a connected series 
and must have been the work of one man. 

What was the personality of the writer ? He was a member of 
the Third Estate," representing Barrois ; '' he sent his bulletins to 

1 Bulletin 4, " Cet homme est una bete feroce " ; bulletin 8, " De quel droit cette 
bete feroce, etc " 

2 Bulletin 5, " Le moment de I'orage approche" ; bulletin 6, " II est evident que 
le moment de la crise approche." 

' The reference to the plan to " faire dissoudre les Etats, pour entrainer le ministre 
dans leur chute." 

* The opinion upon the views of Necker. 

5 With 22, by the reference to Dupont and the Bretons ; with 24, by the reference 
to the motion of Sieyes ; with 26 and 27 by the reference to the Due d'Orleans. 

6 The references here are too numerous for citation. Even a casual reading must 
make it clear that the bulletins are the work of a deputy of the Third Estate. See, how- 
ever, bulletins 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, I2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Ig, 20 and 38. 

'Bulletin 6, "Nous nous sommes plaints d'une demarche faite sous le nom du 
Barrois sans son aveu." 



Il KM. Fling 

Lorraine ; ' he was on most intimate terms with the deputies from 
Nancy ; ^ he made special mention of the words and deeds of per- 
sons known in Lorraine ; ^ he was a member of the comite des siib- 
sistances.^ 

There was, in the Assembly, but one man to whom this descrip- 
tion applied ; that man was Adrien Duquesnoy. He was born at 
Briey in Barrois, and represented that place in the National Assem- 
bly. Some years before 1789, he had moved to Nancy, where he 
became a member of the societe libre des sciences, arts et belles-lettres 
and also of the Conseil de Commerced' In the Assembly, he was a 
member of the comite des siibsistanccs.^ Finally, he was a writer of 
bulletins.'' 

If I have succeeded in my effort to connect the bulletins, if I have 
correctly described the personality of the writer, and have stated 
exactly the facts of Duquesnoy's life, then it would seem to follow, 
with a high degree of probability, that Duquesnoy must have been 
the author of the first forty bulletins. 

Fred Morrow Fling. 

^ See the references to Lorraine given above. 
2 Bulletins 4, 6, 16, 24. 
^ See the references to Lorraine given above. 
* Bulletins 27, 39, 40. 
^Journal, L pp. xviii-xx. 

^ Proces-verbal de V Assemblee Nationale, I., No. 2, p. 4, the name of Duquesnoy 
appears in the list as representing the generalite of Lorraine. 
''Journal, I. 1 72. 



,n!^'^,'*"^ °'' CONGRESS 

lilJlli[[liii]illillllll;;iilll 
0019 602 732 4i 



